As I write this piece, the U.S. is busy inaugurating it's first black president. I guess I probably should be writing about what a monumental day this is in history and what a proud day it is for both our country and for our African-American population who have fought so hard and come so far. the problem is; that piece is being written everywhere and I don't believe you people come to my site to hear yet another version. So I'll simply say that it is an incredible day and congratulations to everyone who fought so hard to make this happen.Now, on to something that is far less covered.
Back in July, your friendly neighborhood Hippie predicted that Israel would be attacking Iran's nuclear installations soon. My prediction since then has been that it would happen before Barack Obama took office. On that, I was wrong. My thinking was that Israel needed the codes necessary to fly over Iraq and that they would rather try to get them from G.W. than from Barack. On that, it appears I was correct. President Bush announced the other day that Israel approached his administration near the end of last year with the idea of taking out Iran's nuclear program. The stunning part, at least for me, was that G.W. turned them down.
The flaw in my thinking was that I didn't consider the implications on Bush's legacy. G.W. has very little that he can point to as successes in his terms. Pretty much there are only two; first, that he kept us safe since 9/11 and second, that he has turned the Iraq War into pretty much a success after it being a long drawn out failure. It now appears Bush wasn't willing to give up one of them for his Jewish friends. Had Israel attacked Iran, we would most likely be looking at far more Iranian sponsored attacks in Iraq. The Shite clerics, many of them with strong Iranian ties, would have backed away from their cooperation with the American forces. The last thing G.W. would want in his final days is a resurgence in the insurgency.
So what now?
Well, I still believe an attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable with or without American cooperation. Israel is in the final stretch of their election, which is held in February of 2009, and as I've said before, security is the only real issue in Israeli politics. In an effort to thwart any criticism of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party, Olmert is taking steps to demonstrate that he is the one to protect Israel from the many growing threats in the Middle East. This is being demonstrated in the most recent incursion into the Gaza Strip against Hamas. The two main concerns the Israeli people have is; the rockets that are raining down from Gaza and the nuclear threat from Iran. Prime Minister Olmert would love to be the one to snuff out both those threats before the election.
In the near future, I predict that Obama will have to deal with the resulting attack on Iran. I still believe that it will happen, the question is only when. Perhaps it's better that it will happen under President Obama. God knows the press both here and overseas will be far kinder to Obama than they would be to an out-going G.W.. Barack's commitment to Israel will be put on trial and so will the overseas love affair with our new President. Enjoy your the moment President Obama, you deserve it. Tomorrow the fun starts. H.C.
6 comments:
i certainly do not envy the man the task he inherits....
Hey Lime,
Neither do I. The good news for Barack is that things are so bad it can only get better....I hope.
An AirForce buddy of mine stationed in Italy raised an interesting point. Apparently the concern amongst soldiers (or some, of course) is that any attack on Iran perpetrated by Israel is likely to be viewed also as an attack by the U.S.. Since the U.S. provides Israel w/ much of it's arms, supplies, & even jet fuel (many times immediately prior to an assault, such as the fairly recent incursion & subsequent destruction of southern Lebanon), this is not all that unrealistic of a view. However, the concern is that should Iran invade, or for whatever reason even attack Iraq (and of course the tens of thousands of U.S. & allied troops as well), the result would be catastrophic as the forces there are entirely unprepared for such an assault.
Furthermore (and this is my speculation, not his), there is absolutely NO way the U.S. could successfully fight wars in all 3 nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, & Iran). Not only would the public support for such be almost nonexistent (the U.S. has paid trillions of $$$ fighting wars over the last 8 years for...essentially nothing in return), but to do so when our country is in it's current economic state would be absolutely ridiculous.
If there's one issue we should all be hoping our new leaders have a cooler head about, it's this.
-n
Hey Nic,
Great points!! The problem is; Israel isn't going to tolerate a nuclear armed Iran....period. No matter what the risk is to the U.S.'s interests. I believe Israel and the U.S. absolutely have an alliance when it comes to their middle-east policy. The U.S. supplies arms and intelligence and then denies supporting their incursions. We act all shocked and appauled when Israel blows the shit out of Lebanon, Gaza, Golen Heights,etc. and call for them to stop on humanitarian grounds, but it's just a dog-and-pony show. If it was only the U.S. making the decision, I believe an attack would never happen for exactly the reasons you very well stated. However, this is Israel's security we're talking about and they are, IMO, not going to stand for it, no matter what we think. After all, it's not like we will suddenly stop supporting Israel and support Muslim countries if a complete Middle East war breaks out. It's frightening to think how badly this is going to impact Obama's plans (do you pull out of Iraq anyway and pretty much surrender that part of Greater Persia to a now much stronger Iran?). I hope there is still a chance that Iran may give up their nuclear program peacefully, but as your own statement proves, the advantage is clearly theirs and they know it.
Hippie, ever since Israel started doing what I consider practice strikes against Syrian nuclear joints in late 2007, people have been speculating an attack on Iran because of their nuclear program. Meanwhile, one year and one contrary NIE report later, no one has lifted a finger.
I think this is merely Israel talking a bunch of s**t they can't back up...especially with having Hamas riding them.
I hope for the sake of the Middle East, the U.S., and the rest of the world that years later, nothing would have still come out of this.
Hey Dre,
I have to differ with you on this one. I don't think this is just Israel talking shit. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei recently said that Iran is "within six months" of having a nuclear weapon. The last time he used that terminology was only two weeks before North Korea tested it's nuclear weapon. The "test run" on Syria was proportedly on banned nuclear material sent from North Korea to Syria. Of course, all sides deny everything. I believe this is real and I believe the request to G.W. confirms it. Some of this is obviously back-door politics (like leaking the info) to let Iran know the time is getting close. We should also consider that Bush may be using a lie (gasp) that he turned Israel down to cover the U.S.'s butt when the Bunker-busting bombs start raining down. Iran has purchased, according to several sources, high dollar anti-aircraft equipment from Russia to hold off any attack. I think that means they are firm in their resolve to get a nuclear weapon. Israel is telegraphing their response because they're hoping they won't have to do this, but the clock is ticking and I don't see much time left. I sincerly think Iran believes their program will survive any attack and they will end up with a weapon in the end. Israel's politicians cannot politically let that happen without at least trying to destroy it. Hold on to your butts, folks. This could get scary.
Post a Comment